Roman Catholic bishops may have had good intentions when they sent researchers looking for answers as to why many of their clergy became sex offenders, but the results have not exactly stirred confidence in victims' rights groups. The idea was to find patterns that might explain where the abuse came from and help them to identify offenders quickly in the future. Victims' rights groups want to know why past abuse was allowed to continue, rather than where the abuse originated. Neither group seemed to get what they wanted from this particular study in the end. Link continued here.....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110518/us_ac/8493825_new_study_says_homosexuality_nor_celibacy_caused_roman_catholic_abuse_scandal

Roman Catholic bishops may have had good intentions when they sent researchers looking for answers as to why many of their clergy became sex offenders, but the results have not exactly stirred confidence in victims' rights groups. The idea was to find patterns that might explain where the abuse came from and help them to identify offenders quickly in the future. Victims' rights groups want to know why past abuse was allowed to continue, rather than where the abuse originated. Neither group seemed to get what they wanted from this particular study in the end. Link continued here.....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110518/us_ac/8493825_new_study_says_homosexuality_nor_celibacy_caused_roman_catholic_abuse_scandal

Personally I think this study is baloney and does more to damage credibility than any other imaginable outcome of a survey or study of the offending population.

For an entire regional episcopate to willingly hide behind "I am a product of my environment"...is a travesty in practice and in example and in moral truth...and to ignore the impact of the lavender mafia on the Catholic Church in the United States is just damned irresponsible.

Many of the homosexuals who entered the Church since the 70s were not chaste and continent men. To deny that has anything to do with the deplorable moral state of the American Church, at least, leaves me speechless...almost.

Roman Catholic bishops may have had good intentions when they sent researchers looking for answers as to why many of their clergy became sex offenders, but the results have not exactly stirred confidence in victims' rights groups. The idea was to find patterns that might explain where the abuse came from and help them to identify offenders quickly in the future. Victims' rights groups want to know why past abuse was allowed to continue, rather than where the abuse originated. Neither group seemed to get what they wanted from this particular study in the end. Link continued here.....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110518/us_ac/8493825_new_study_says_homosexuality_nor_celibacy_caused_roman_catholic_abuse_scandal

Further down the article said:

"According to the study, the problem was mostly due to poor seminary training and a lack of emotional support for men during the time period. Social problems were blamed largely because of the 1960s, though that connection seems tenuous at best. "

All you need do is talk to good men who manage to remain chaste and continent, who were in seminary in those decades of increasing numbers of gay men, and just in the ordinary telling of their experiences it is clear that there was a highly charged sexual atmosphere because of the introduction of gay life-stylers into seminary life...and there were bishops as guilty as the priests they cultivated. That there is still the effort to gloss those realities is very disturbing.

Roman Catholic bishops may have had good intentions when they sent researchers looking for answers as to why many of their clergy became sex offenders, but the results have not exactly stirred confidence in victims' rights groups. The idea was to find patterns that might explain where the abuse came from and help them to identify offenders quickly in the future. Victims' rights groups want to know why past abuse was allowed to continue, rather than where the abuse originated. Neither group seemed to get what they wanted from this particular study in the end. Link continued here.....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110518/us_ac/8493825_new_study_says_homosexuality_nor_celibacy_caused_roman_catholic_abuse_scandal

Further down the article said:

"According to the study, the problem was mostly due to poor seminary training and a lack of emotional support for men during the time period. Social problems were blamed largely because of the 1960s, though that connection seems tenuous at best. "

Huh? Maybe if the teach a course" Keep you hands off little boys" things will improve.

Mary, if these individuals were so comfortable with engaging in sex with adults of the same sex, then they shouldn't have had any pressure to have sex with children, unless they were perverted beyond mere homosexuality in the first place. I doubt that would be the case with most of them. As for those who actually observe celibacy, I would imagine the sexual pressure would be much greater.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Mary, if these individuals were so comfortable with engaging in sex with adults of the same sex, then they shouldn't have had any pressure to have sex with children, unless they were perverted beyond mere homosexuality in the first place. I doubt that would be the case with most of them. As for those who actually observe celibacy, I would imagine the sexual pressure would be much greater.

Seems to me that is rather simplistic to think that people who exercise their sexuality with children do not do so with adults as well...

Also my real point is that active homosexuals in a seminary precipitate a highly sexualized environment that gives tacit permission to others who act out equally inappropriately and worse, where children are involved.

It took a study to conclude that homosexuality wasn't directly correlated to pedophilia?

Most of the cases of sexual abuse of minors among priests were not pedophilia. There's never been the accusation that there's a direct connection between homosexuals and the sexual abuse of prepubescent children. But to deny that active homosexuals, priests and bishops, have had no bearing on and did not participate in man-boy love is simply stupid and blind and absurd and evil.

Seems to me that is rather simplistic to think that people who exercise their sexuality with children do not do so with adults as well...

Also my real point is that active homosexuals in a seminary precipitate a highly sexualized environment that gives tacit permission to others who act out equally inappropriately and worse, where children are involved.

Pedophiles usually aren't comfortable having a sexual relationship with another adult, which is why they sexualize children.

Seems like the RCC is trying to blame child sex abuse of the 60's and 70's on Woodstock. So what caused the abuse during the 50's? Sputnik?The 40's? The Rosenburgs?The 30's? The New Deal?The 20's? Prohibition?...

Most of the cases of sexual abuse of minors among priests were not pedophilia. There's never been the accusation that there's a direct connection between homosexuals and the sexual abuse of prepubescent children. But to deny that active homosexuals, priests and bishops, have had no bearing on and did not participate in man-boy love is simply stupid and blind and absurd and evil.

I'm sorry I can't decipher that statement. Clarification?btw, you do realize that the term "man-boy love" is only used by proponents of the practice and could cause filters to block OC from computers in public libraries and schools?

and to ignore the impact of the lavender mafia on the Catholic Church in the United States is just damned irresponsible.

Many of the homosexuals who entered the Church since the 70s were not chaste and continent men. To deny that has anything to do with the deplorable moral state of the American Church, at least, leaves me speechless...almost.

If they made that conclusion, the media would roast them over an open fire. So I was not surprised to see this.

Of course, they are already roasting them over this one. The only proposed solutions the secular world will be happy with is either 1) we have to get rid of our old-fashioned, outdated morality standards about sex and sexuality and become Episcopalians, or 2) we should just shut down.

As a matter of fact, just today I was listening to NPR, and after a biased summary of the report that distilled it down to what NPR called the "Woodstock defense", they brought out commentary by an ex-priest who claimed the only way to stop the "rampant" and "pervasive" sex abuse was to change the "culture" of the male-dominated Church.

You know what the solution is? Well-adjusted priests who are in the world but not of the world, who believe and live the authentic Catholic teaching on faith and morals, and bishops who take their God-ordained role as shepherds of SOULS seriously.

Certainly other churches and institutions have similar problems, but we can and should certainly expect more. And things are much better. Last year (2010) there were 7 credible accusations of abuse against priests in the United States, and 6 the year before.

Pedophiles usually aren't comfortable having a sexual relationship with another adult, which is why they sexualize children.

Seems like the RCC is trying to blame child sex abuse of the 60's and 70's on Woodstock. So what caused the abuse during the 50's? Sputnik?The 40's? The Rosenburgs?The 30's? The New Deal?The 20's? Prohibition?...

Alas, abuse will always exist. Look at the rabbis who have been caught committing this stuff and covering it up. It happens.

But the report was trying to figure out why abuse sharply increased in the 1960s and 1970s and started dissipating in the 1980s and 1990s.

Most of the cases of sexual abuse of minors among priests were not pedophilia. There's never been the accusation that there's a direct connection between homosexuals and the sexual abuse of prepubescent children. But to deny that active homosexuals, priests and bishops, have had no bearing on and did not participate in man-boy love is simply stupid and blind and absurd and evil.

I'm sorry I can't decipher that statement. Clarification?btw, you do realize that the term "man-boy love" is only used by proponents of the practice and could cause filters to block OC from computers in public libraries and schools?

Bishop Thomas V. Daily of Brooklyn, N.Y., formerly a top-ranking official in the Archdiocese of Boston, knew the Rev. Paul Shanley endorsed sex between men and boys, but promoted him to head a Catholic parish nevertheless. And Father Shanley was an active supporter of NAMBLA (North American M**-B** love association. http://www.boston.com/news/daily/28/abuse_deposition.htm

All you need do is talk to good men who manage to remain chaste and continent, who were in seminary in those decades of increasing numbers of gay men, and just in the ordinary telling of their experiences it is clear that there was a highly charged sexual atmosphere because of the introduction of gay life-stylers into seminary life...and there were bishops as guilty as the priests they cultivated. That there is still the effort to gloss those realities is very disturbing.

Roman Catholic bishops may have had good intentions when they sent researchers looking for answers as to why many of their clergy became sex offenders, but the results have not exactly stirred confidence in victims' rights groups. The idea was to find patterns that might explain where the abuse came from and help them to identify offenders quickly in the future. Victims' rights groups want to know why past abuse was allowed to continue, rather than where the abuse originated. Neither group seemed to get what they wanted from this particular study in the end. Link continued here.....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110518/us_ac/8493825_new_study_says_homosexuality_nor_celibacy_caused_roman_catholic_abuse_scandal

Further down the article said:

"According to the study, the problem was mostly due to poor seminary training and a lack of emotional support for men during the time period. Social problems were blamed largely because of the 1960s, though that connection seems tenuous at best. "

Huh? Maybe if the teach a course" Keep you hands off little boys" things will improve.

training course 101: " Say no to sex with little boys"

training course 102: "Say no to sex with little girls"

training course 201: "Girlfriends. Are they worth it?"

training course 202: "Boyfriends. Are they worth it?"

Advanced training 301" Crystal Meth. Just say no"

Advanced training 302: Crystal Meth and little boys. Bad combination"

Wonder how it would be different if there were good men who were chaste and "incontinent," i.e. married, in the seminary, how it would be different. Or do you say it would not be different?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As for those who actually observe celibacy, I would imagine the sexual pressure would be much greater.

You know perfectly well that masturbation or sex does not reduce sexual pressure. Rather, it stokes the fires.

So St. Paul was wrong, and no hope for the married. Got it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Seems to me that is rather simplistic to think that people who exercise their sexuality with children do not do so with adults as well...

I didn't suggest that. I just suggested that most homosexuals are not pedophiles and if anything being open and relaxed about your sexuality draws one away from extreme perversions much more so than suppressing it.

Also my real point is that active homosexuals in a seminary precipitate a highly sexualized environment that gives tacit permission to others who act out equally inappropriately and worse, where children are involved.

While I wouldn't say that I respect this choice to buck the practice of clerical celibacy while playing along with the track towards clerical ordination, your implication that homosexual behavior gives tacit permission to pedophilia is simply ridiculous and even offensive.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

But to deny that active homosexuals, priests and bishops, have had no bearing on and did not participate in man-boy love is simply stupid and blind and absurd and evil.

You have suggested more than that, however.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Of course, they are already roasting them over this one. The only proposed solutions the secular world will be happy with is either 1) we have to get rid of our old-fashioned, outdated morality standards about sex and sexuality and become Episcopalians, or 2) we should just shut down.

Or: 3) you could actually try being tough on sexually abusing priests.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

As for those who actually observe celibacy, I would imagine the sexual pressure would be much greater.

You know perfectly well that masturbation or sex does not reduce sexual pressure. Rather, it stokes the fires.

I do? No, I don't acknowledge that.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

To dismiss celibacy and homosexuality as being a 'cause' or even the 'cause' for abuse is probably something of a smokescreen. However, in terms of 'causation' how would one explain the similar percentages of abusers among coaches, mentors, school teachers, family members, parents etc.. Many, if not the majority of those offenders are married, often with families.

Sex, as normally understood between human beings, is usually not the driving force behind crimes of sexual violence and domination. Usually power, control and a sense of invulnerability are lurking within the personalities of offenders.

Perhaps that is the point and the Bishops tried to emphasize that as a sad defense of celibacy. In other words, celibacy is not the cause per se but they are desperate to defend it.

It took a study to conclude that homosexuality wasn't directly correlated to pedophilia?

Most of the cases of sexual abuse of minors among priests were not pedophilia. There's never been the accusation that there's a direct connection between homosexuals and the sexual abuse of prepubescent children. But to deny that active homosexuals, priests and bishops, have had no bearing on and did not participate in m-b love is simply stupid and blind and absurd and evil.

First impressions here is that it is a smoke screen, and not the type that rises from the thurible. It reads like they don't want to offend anyone.

More than likely the whole thing is made of bologne sandwiches.

The trouble I can see with it's vague language is that it doesn't address the real issue at hand. Meanwhile, priests, are suffering; those both wrongly accused and justly accused, imprisoned and otherwise. I think of the priests imprisoned, suffering greatly without access to the vehicles of God's Mysterious Grace. Yes, I have regard even for the most heinous violators. I can think of a priest who had not received a visit and had gone without the Sacraments for more than 5-years. That is scandalous.

Americans excel at secular justice tragically at the expense of their faculty to exercise His Mercy.

The cause of such nefarity is complex. It reeks of the what Dr. Kreeft calls the lower-archy; the organised evil of hell in all it's intricacy. Consider the word: nefarious. It's very meaning implies an attack on our poor Jesus, cursed at and spat upon. This entire scandal has been an assault on the King.

In regarding the human source of the scandal, I have read monastic journals from the late 1940's through the 1950's. It becomes quite clear that there were some psychological problems becoming exasperated and errupting in the overcrowded conditions after the Second World War. There are many complaints of the canidates being ill-formed; many with what we would today call Post-traumatic stress disorder.

Compounding this problem was the rise of the homosexualist movement; obvious, is the relaxation of moral standards for canidates at the time. In defence of the afflicted, there are many good and holy men stricken with the loneliness of homosexuality. There are many who are villians. For those who lead holy lives they surely will be rewarded for the Lord gave them many talents.

As a post-script, I cannot resist a movie I recently saw from 1973 where a character said something about how adultery and molesting children isn't considered a sin anymore. I also think of an atheist university professor who said that everybody was being touchy in the aftermath of the 1960's.

Mary, if these individuals were so comfortable with engaging in sex with adults of the same sex, then they shouldn't have had any pressure to have sex with children, unless they were perverted beyond mere homosexuality in the first place. I doubt that would be the case with most of them. As for those who actually observe celibacy, I would imagine the sexual pressure would be much greater.

Seems to me that is rather simplistic to think that people who exercise their sexuality with children do not do so with adults as well...

Also my real point is that active homosexuals in a seminary precipitate a highly sexualized environment that gives tacit permission to others who act out equally inappropriately and worse, where children are involved.

To blame homosexuals for pedophilia just shows how little you know about either group.

Pedophile doesn't automatically mean "sex with little boys." It means "sex with children." There were male and female victims of abuse, and it has nothing to do with whether or not the offender was homosexual. Furthermore, being celibate, married, gay, or straight will not stop a pedophile from abusing his/her victim.

I've personally known victims of sexual abuse who's abusers were married men with free and open access to sex with their wives. The offenders chose to abuse children because the psychological drive to abuse is an abnormal one that "normal" sex will not satisfy.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you are quick to cast blame on Homosexual priests who were not celibate, but say nothing about the Heterosexual priests who were not celibate. How many female "secretaries" or "housekeepers" have born the children of priests (heck, Popes!) throughout the centuries?!

No, the drive for a pedophile has very little to do with sexual preference and everything to do with the sick drive to control and abuse those who are weaker than you.

I pray that the Catholic Church will be able to find the root of this problem, and that the victims AND their abusers will find healing in God's Holy Kingdom.

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

Also my real point is that active homosexuals in a seminary precipitate a highly sexualized environment that gives tacit permission to others who act out equally inappropriately and worse, where children are involved.

To blame homosexuals for pedophilia just shows how little you know about either group.

If you read the words I did write you will see that you've added quite a bit to them. Also as I've noted elsewhere, the instances of classic pedophilia were a small percentage of all of the cases of abuse.

So until you can actually address what I have said in the words that I've used...there's no point in saying more for you to distort.

Also my real point is that active homosexuals in a seminary precipitate a highly sexualized environment that gives tacit permission to others who act out equally inappropriately and worse, where children are involved.

To blame homosexuals for pedophilia just shows how little you know about either group.

If you read the words I did write you will see that you've added quite a bit to them. Also as I've noted elsewhere, the instances of classic pedophilia were a small percentage of all of the cases of abuse.

So until you can actually address what I have said in the words that I've used...there's no point in saying more for you to distort.

I have read what you wrote, and it is obvious to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

Also my real point is that active homosexuals in a seminary precipitate a highly sexualized environment that gives tacit permission to others who act out equally inappropriately and worse, where children are involved.

To blame homosexuals for pedophilia just shows how little you know about either group.

If you read the words I did write you will see that you've added quite a bit to them. Also as I've noted elsewhere, the instances of classic pedophilia were a small percentage of all of the cases of abuse.

So until you can actually address what I have said in the words that I've used...there's no point in saying more for you to distort.

I have read what you wrote, and it is obvious to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

Well it is not obvious to the priests who have been affected by active homosexuals in seminaries for 50-60 years, and they are the first ones to cry foul when the bishops duck the issue and the Vatican seems to agree with them and have said no more recruiting homosexuals for the priesthood, and no more weeding out heterosexual males who do not approve of active homosexuals in seminary with them.

So frankly I think there's some discrepancy here on who knows what....

Read some of the studies that do a breakdown on how much of the abuse by priests was actually clinical pedophilia. You seem to be hyper-focused on only that aspect of the problem. It was much more complex than that.

Also I have indeed addressed much of what you talk about later in your note in other related threads here on the Forum.

I am an abuse survivor and have spent a good bit of time with those who are similarly situated, so you are a bit out of your depth when telling me I am an idiot.